1 / 16

DFID Seminar, 21 st October 2011 Land Deals: The Winners, Losers and Implications for Development

DFID Seminar, 21 st October 2011 Land Deals: The Winners, Losers and Implications for Development. Elizabeth Daley Consultant, Mokoro Ltd. Focus on Implications. In terms of a DFID policy and position on land deals, trying to get a handle on the implications is key.

susane
Download Presentation

DFID Seminar, 21 st October 2011 Land Deals: The Winners, Losers and Implications for Development

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. DFID Seminar, 21st October 2011Land Deals: The Winners, Losers and Implications for Development Elizabeth Daley Consultant, Mokoro Ltd Mokoro Ltd, www.mokoro.co.uk

  2. Focus on Implications • In terms of a DFID policy and position on land deals, trying to get a handle on the implications is key. • These are largely potential implications – most land deals in early stages still so few actual implications to review – and certainly few long-term ones from the current deals. Mokoro Ltd, www.mokoro.co.uk

  3. Gender Implications • Understanding gender differences in relation to land deals is essential to understanding the full implications of land deals for development. • Little attention to gender in the literature and debate, yet research (e.g. from ILC) shows it is a key variable – that implications are heterogenous and differentiated. • Very generally, more likely to be negative for women than for men, but it is not always clearcut. Mokoro Ltd, www.mokoro.co.uk

  4. Implications are Context Specific (1) • From investments in tourism and aquaculture on common property foreshores and mangroves in the Philippines, and from SEZs on people’s farms in India, impacts on women to date have been negative in terms of access to productive resources and relative income poverty vis-à-vis men, including through direct loss of land for farming and loss of access to land used to collect food products and timber. • BUT, in both cases the investments have had a positive impact on women’s participation in decision-making in their communities. They have joined men in taking a stand against the worst aspects of the investments and women are among the leaders of the community mobilisation efforts. Mokoro Ltd, www.mokoro.co.uk

  5. Implications are Context Specific (2) • From investments in commercial sugar cane production on people’s informally-used land in Rwanda, the impact to date on women’s access to productive resources has been mixed (positive and negative), and on their relative income poverty vis-à-vis men it has been mixed but potentially positive going forwards. Women are paid the same as men in the jobs being created, many women are employed, and there are opportunities for women to farm plots as sugarcane sub-contractors themselves. Mokoro Ltd, www.mokoro.co.uk

  6. Implications are Context Specific (3) • From investments in biofuels production on common property wetlands in Ethiopia, the impact to date on women’s access to productive resources in the wetlands has been negative but there are potentially positive effects already visible for relative income poverty through employment. • In contrast, in Zambia, biofuels investments on informally-used Mission land has had a direct negative impact on women’s access to productive resources and their relative income poverty, including through dispossession from homes and farms and loss of livelihoods. Mokoro Ltd, www.mokoro.co.uk

  7. Three Broad Types of Land Deals • Pure speculation – hedge funds etc. • Productive investment but not specifically ethical investment. • Ethical investment oriented – including principles of sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) Mokoro Ltd, www.mokoro.co.uk

  8. Implications: Speculative Investments • From speculative investments, unlikely to see any positive implications for local people and direct negative effects more likely. • Difficult for DFID as a development agency to support this kind of investment in any way and DFID policy/position should be clear on this. Mokoro Ltd, www.mokoro.co.uk

  9. Implications: Productive Investments • From productive investments which are not ethically-oriented, possibilities for both positive and negative implications for local people – • decisions are made on the business case and implications depend on the details of the business model used • some productive investments might have positive multiplier effects for local economy (e.g. demand for services) • others might have direct negative effects (e.g. land loss) Mokoro Ltd, www.mokoro.co.uk

  10. Policy for Productive Investments • Clear scope for DFID policy/position to support initiatives to promote responsible investment, e.g. through development of the RAI Principles and subsequent monitoring of adherence to them by UK investors. Mokoro Ltd, www.mokoro.co.uk

  11. Implications: Ethical Investments • Explicitly ethically-oriented investments should in theory have many positive implications and minimal direct negative effects. • Scope for DFID policy/position here to support these investments, monitor them, disseminate good practices from them among non-ethically-oriented productive investments and so on. Mokoro Ltd, www.mokoro.co.uk

  12. What Does this Mean in Practice? • In a specific country, need to asses • the overall political/economic/social context of land deals • the extent of the land deals • the key players, and so on. • Also need to understand the livelihoods and food security context, the structure of farming, the land tenure arrangements, and gender differences in all of these. Mokoro Ltd, www.mokoro.co.uk

  13. Supporting Investment for Development • In most countries, there is no reason not to support explicitly ethically-oriented investments and responsible productive investments. • A personal view from the field - people in rural areas of developing countries are not all against investment, nor against all land deals. They don’t all want to be farmers. They want to diversify their livelihoods and, most importantly, see some gains from the investments that come into their areas. Mokoro Ltd, www.mokoro.co.uk

  14. What is Needed for the Investment? • Sometimes investments will require some land acquisition – this is not necessarily a bad thing – it depends on the overall business case and country context. • Sometimes investments can utilise alternative business models that leave land ownership in local hands and involve participation by local people in the investment – again it depends on the overall business case and country context. Mokoro Ltd, www.mokoro.co.uk

  15. Supporting Responsible Investment • There is clear scope for DFID policy/position to actively encourage and support a positive approach to investment – encouraging the use of alternative business models, supporting responsible practices, and considering land acquisition objectively in accordance with the business case and broader country case. • We cannot support growth and development if we do not engage with the private sector in promoting responsible investment. And that sometimes needs land. Mokoro Ltd, www.mokoro.co.uk

  16. THANK YOU! Mokoro Ltd, www.mokoro.co.uk

More Related